Transmogrified Tiger

Bellinger was traded. So apply that to Bregman, how are they clearing themselves of hypothetical opted in Bregman if the whole point is being free of obligations to lock the players out to extract maximum CBA concessions? And more to the point, the point of view here appears to be that ownership is mandating no 2027+ spending but also they can offer 2027+ spending because they can just trade it before the date arrives? So what type of limitation is that actually, if at all?

Whose point do you think you're making by bringing up Bellinger, the player widely assumed to be a likely opt out that...did not opt out.

Bregman had a good 2024, so the main thing depressing his market was the qualifying offer. I'm really skeptical that 2 years later he's going to find a better deal worth opting out for heading into his age 33 season. At a minimum that isn't the most likely outcome by a long shot. Maybe if he has an especially good year banging doubles off the green monster the calculus is a bit different after a single year, but less relevant to this particular topic. The idea that there's an edict to not have spending beyond 2026 so they carefully put an opt out for 33 year old Bregman to fall into their trap by exercising just doesn't make for coherent logic.

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule on this. They just offered Bregman a deal that went to 2028, they're going to offer Tucker a deal that goes beyond one year, the middle of the road outcome for Imanaga's maze of options is keeping him beyond 2026. Plus of the 4 guys who were signed to bigger deals expiring after 2026, 2 of them I don't think they would've wanted to add an extra year regardless(a 5th year for Taillon or a 6th for an unproven Seiya). I'm sure it's a factor in how it's played out, at least in the sense that in 2027 and beyond the rules will be different and they don't want to over-optimize for a landscape that won't exist then. But I think the idea that they're trying to actively minimize 2027 money so owners can try to rake players over the coals is vastly overstated here.

Seiya's like a -3 OF, and I really doubt they would've supplanted him in RF with anyone who wasn't a Tucker-caliber hitter. I don't think they're going to orient the bench around the idea that his glove is radioactive, and I think signing a 1B/DH instead of someone with some OF flexibility(or letting Canario have runway for that spot) is another sign in that direction.

The Cubs have 4 starting caliber outfielders already, and they just signed someone who can readily play DH to ensure that flexibility can be used in 4th OF-esque fashion. That combined with the right handedness of the bench and his lack of individual progress the last 2 years means it's pretty clear Canario isn't long for the roster, imo. Maybe Nico is 100% ready for Japan and Counsell wants a 2nd pinch hitter so he survives opening day, but he's the only player in that group who doesn't really have a role that he's first in line to be the reserve for.

Now you're really not making sense here. Tauchman was a lefty outfielder, not even 1b / I bow out of this because I dont even know what we're talking about anymore. Turner as a hitter has more in common with Tauchman in terms of their swings and peripherals than he does with Mancini/Hosmer. Handedness and position aren't the primary drivers of aging curves. Turner is also a more accomplished hitter than Mancini(who had a much shorter peak), Hosmer(who was never a consistently good hitter), and obviously Tauchman, so using them as your comparison just because they played for the Cubs is not very useful.

Those young outfielders are not a clearly better bet offensively. ZiPS has Turner with a 112 wRC+, Caissie 100, Alcantara 85. But even if the team prefers to bet on their upside when there's an IL stint(or wants the marginally better defense over Suzuki), they are unlikely to be called up to fill in twice a week for normal rest or a knock that doesn't require an IL stint.

On the current roster, Turner is the first person you insert into the lineup if someone isn't playing at no less than 4 spots, corner OF(DH w/ Suzuki to OF), DH, and 1B. That group is probably going to have at least 60 games where they aren't in the lineup due to rest or little bumps and bruises. It's also extremely likely that one of those 4 has at least a brief IL stint. So we're talking about ~75 games where Turner is your first choice to start before we consider that he'll likely get some more platoon-based time at 1B, which is fine even if we don't think Busch needs protecting from all LHP. Throw in being the primary PH on any day he isn't in the lineup, and as long as he's not playing below expectations there's a very clear path to 300+ PA if he continues to hit. Turner does have risk, that's why he is taking a bench role and why he was available at the start of spring training. Saying that 'being optimistic about Turner is questionable because people liked Mancini and Hosmer' doesn't make any sense. If anything he has more in common at the plate with someone like Tauchman who continued to exceed expectations at the plate despite being older than Mancini/Hosmer were during their Cubs tenure.

I think there's several things that aren't looking through the right lens here. 1) Turner is going to get more than 150-200 plate appearances if he plays to expectations. Especially with the way workloads are managed in the current game, there are a lot more spot starts and pinch hit opportunities. Very possible he doubles that estimate, which pairs well with the next thought. 2) Looking at bench players with this type of $/WAR lens is missing the point of the purpose bench players serve. Saying that he's paid as a pro-rated 18 million dollar player is non-sensical. Plus Turner's big benefit is raising the floor. He's not going to add 3 wins by himself, but by having a decent major league hitter you hedge against injury and underperformance elsewhere with less risk than if Canario was the primary 1B backup. 3) We have better ways of looking at offensive performance than raw OPS, especially in the situation for someone like Turner who spent a chunk of last season in the worst offensive home park in baseball. Turner pretty consistently has been a 120ish wRC+ against LHP, and the fact that he's quite playable against RHP(very little platoon split traditionally) also helps considering the lack of LHH bench bats on the current roster. 4) Grichuk would've been a perfectly fine bench add, as he does hit lefties very well. But he's also a zero against RHP(making him easier to gameplan against as a pinch hitter than someone like Turner), and more importantly he has a clearer path to extended playing time in Arizona than he does in Chicago with 4 OF that are better than him.

At least for opening day I would probably bet Workman as the 26th man as of now. Canario has an uphill climb given Turner and Berti are competition for playing time he would get, and the bench is already all-RHH. Brujan feels like an easy outright after ST to keep him in Iowa, and Lopez feels like a guy who gets 5 PA if Hoerner has to be ILed to start the year, or maybe gets it if he plays well and Workman flops. Workman has the defense that Brujan/Lopez offer, hits LHH unlike Canario, and has pop that Brujan/Lopez don't. I'm also not sure what other NRIs are in camp that might pull a Tauchman, that feels like a real possibility especially if Workman doesn't look good in ST.

I think the bear case for Canha is that he's more or less a 1B/DH, and at his age the optimistic outcome is repeating 2024(an OBP-heavy league average line), which isn't exactly a profile you're eager to lock in at 1B/DH. It is a little odd that no one believes in the bat or glove a bit more to make that signing happen though.

I don't really follow how deferrals would be a particular pain point if they were looking to sell the team(which I would be shocked if they were, even in the medium term). The obligations are self-funded on the same timeline as if there weren't deferrals, so it's not as if there's a sense of sticking the new owner with the bill. I'm sure when it comes to financial reporting it creates some paperwork, but the idea that a new owner would balk at making their best offer for the franchise(especially this franchise) because of it seems very implausible. What I suspect is a more accurate explanation is that the team prefers to not defer money as a philosophical preference, and that preference is firm right up until it isn't. They've deferred money on contracts multiple times as owners of the Cubs, and unless the player and agent are going to let the vanity of a pre-deferral number drive their decision, if the owners don't want to defer then there's no reason to defer. I would compare it to a family having an opposition to paying for purchases with a credit card, it's one of those quasi-logical things that's more quirk than anything. But then if a big medical bill or plumbing emergency forces it, they use that lever. You can see how that idea wouldn't apply in the case of Bregman, who very obviously wasn't the linchpin of the offseason where you use every tool at your disposal to ensure you seal the deal, but an attempt to be opportunistic(possibly above their previously agreed spending limits). To torture the credit card example further, that family with a firm approach about credit cards isn't going to change their mind for a new mattress, even if it's on sale and maybe would provide some material benefits over the alternatives/their current model.

By multiple reports they offered Bregman a very similar AAV to what he signed for, so I don't think deferrals would have been a differentiator outside of Bregman/Boras getting to brag about a pre-deferral number. The point about cash flow is not that the Cubs are short on cash flow, it's that one of the reasons you might think teams defer is not nearly as significant in practice due to having to escrow those amounts.

Deferral amounts have to be escrowed, so on top of there being no difference from a CBT standpoint, there's not an enormous difference from a cashflow standpoint either.

Not deferring money as a rule could be a disadvantage if players are taking deals with deferred money over economically similar offers just so they/their agent can crow about the largest number.

I would square this by saying that Caissie's batting average is more a reflection of his contact quality when he makes contact than his ability to consistently make contact. He ran a 70% contact rate at AAA, at the major league level that contact rate is very rare to be associated with a strong batting average. Throw in that you would expect that to drop further at the MLB level and the optimistic version of that profile is more like Jake Burger unless there are noticeable changes. Still a worthwhile player, but unmistakably power over hit.

“Why would fans consider the reality of their team’s spending in deciding if a particular contract is a good idea” should not be a particularly difficult question to answer

The thing is, if they don't drop salary, Pivetta will cost them about 11 million in real dollars this year. 4 million paid out, and another 6.9 in luxury tax penalties since they are more than his AAV above the LT line.

I think the point is well taken that fans can get overly focused on having a perfect roster on opening day when that will not make it to the postseason, this is especially useful in how we think about the bullpen in particular. But there is an opportunity cost to waiting, and I'm far less confident about the wealth of superior options as the season progresses. Adding Turner or a similar 1B bat at the deadline would help, but it would also have an opportunity cost of more than half the season. A big part of that addition in particular is risk mitigation, if e.g. Busch face plants in year 2, or Happ pulls a Schwarber and tears his ACL early on, you're playing a lot of games with a worse lineup having waited to make that move. Trades before the all-star break have become basically non-existent as well, so having willing trade partners is a problem until you're nearly 100 games into the season. And the alternatives are not necessarily abundant. With the extra wild card there are fewer teams than ever looking to trade away useful MLB players in July. Platoon 1B/positionless bat isn't a rare enough profile that there'd be no options to be found, but we should careful about being overconfident that there are oodles of better options waiting for us just down the road.

A Turner-caliber bat probably starts close to 50 games when you consider platoon hedging(for Busch and potentially PCA if they like Tucker in CF), being the best bat for DH if an OF is rested. That probably becomes more like 75 when you consider injuries. Maybe I'm being slightly optimistic, but you throw in pinch hitting and it's not hard to get to 300 PA. I've been on record that I'd prefer a SP addition over Bregman so no argument about the impact, but Turner is not really mutually exclusive with that, and having playing time to be worth it won't be an issue.

I think a backup 1B is worth getting for a few different reasons. With Berti and Kelly as bench players not providing a ton of pop, a reasonable backup 1B gives you something you don't have from a PH perspective. While I'm bullish on Busch as an everyday 1B, he did fade pretty hard against LHP as the year went on(pre-ASB: 157 wRC+, 21%/8% K%/BB%; post-ASB: 56 wRC+, 28%/7% K%/BB%). You don't want Berti to be plan A for soaking up those at bats, especially if he's also hedging Shaw None of the prospect bats are a clean fit. None of them have spent significant defensive time at 1B, and Caissie and Ballesteros are LHH

Yes, not sure why I had it in my head Boston was last year. That's a more optimistic result then, though still a side eye towards how poorly he hit in more neutral/uniform conditions.

Turner is probably not as good as his line last year thanks to being able to bank balls off the green monster for half the season. But he still had a very healthy line against LHP away from home, so bench bat/platoon handcuff for Busch is a fine role for him.

Yeah Smith was at worst the 4th biggest problem in the KC OL last night.